Posted
by
Hemos
on Wednesday October 11, 2000 @02:04PM
from the one-more-step-on-the-road dept.

Scott Brauer writes: "The University of Washington's Center for Nanotechnology has announced that the UW will be host to the first nanotech degree program in the U.S. An article in The Daily, the campus newspaper, mentions here that the Ph.D. offered is an 'option program' within a group of other programs, meaning that 'students will earn simulatneous degrees in both nanotechnology and in one of nine other departments.' The program is estimated to have 20 to 40 students per year, including this year, as soon as the Board of Regents makes its expected vote of approval. Another article can be found here."

What a sleazy grab for headlines. Unless one works in an advanced IBM lab or the like, such a degree isn't worth the paper it's printed on. No one is currently in a position to "teach" nano-tech. It's like teaching warp-drive at this point. Okay, so I exaggerate. Not by much.

it had to be said it may as well have been me. The whole point of nanotech is that where we are now there are not alot of good uses. Take a look at the book (if you have not already) to see where stuff like this can take us. This *will* be very good.

You think THIS is silly? Here in teh UK, we (used to) give students grants and free tuition. Then someone noticed that it worked out cheaper than giving them state benefit and lowered unemployment figures.

You could have given the Wright brothers such a degree. They pioneered what has evolved into what we understand today.
New fields of study w/o available PhD's are less likely to be pursued vigorously, so this is a Good Thing.
Who'll be the first Doctor of Nanotech? Drexler?

The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all, is the person who argues with him.

I think you saw that only 20-40 people will be in the program. They will also get another degree and 20-40 people will not finish it. So ya the 5-10 grads will probably get employment with IBM or Dr Evil.

So what? There are lots of specialty degrees that have many theoretical things invovled in them to. (Physics for example). Some of them aren't even in the sciences. (think Economics) Theory is part of our world. Without it we'd just stick in a permanent holding cycle. It challenges the bounderies, forces us to change. I for one am not big on trying to "compile" Java with a stone ax. If you find out a way please tell me. That way when I hose my computer I can still finish my work.

There's a difference between Theoretical Physics, or even Economics and Nanotechnology. Nanotech is about actual physical objects. Going back to my previous post, this isn't like Physics degrees, this is like aeronautical engineering degrees before there were planes... a lot of people believed it was theoretically possible to create a heavier than air flying machine, but no one had yet.

Lots of people are researching nanotech without being able to get degrees in it. Any researcher who researches only to get a degree probably isn't the sort to make the breakthroughs anyhow. Its the people who are doing it for the simple satisfaction of gaining knowledge that will advance the world. When there's actual nanotech available to study, I can see have a nanotech program at a university, otherwise its just PR.

As a chip designer I've often found myself whipping out an opened die and showing off - "look I did that little square there" - luckily as
feature sizes shrink tools have kept pace and we've
become much more productive - so "that little square there" has stayed roughly the same size
over the past decade or so.

Nanotech will change all this - features will be way too small to show off.... instead we'll probably be bragging about "do you remember that cold you had last summer..."

You're totally right. In ten or so years the entire volume of worldly nanotech probably won't amount to a hill of beans, literally.
But in twenty years... that hill of beans won't be beans, it'll be your stupid disbelief -- and I'll be eating it for lunch.

The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all, is the person who argues with him.

Drexler already has a degree in nanotechnology. If I remember the book jacket correctly (it's been a while), he went to some board at MIT, outlined a course of study for himself and asked for a PhD in Nanotech.
Here's the excerpt from wwww.foresight.org: [foresight.org]
"Dr. Drexler received an S.B. degree from M.I.T. in Interdisciplinary Science, an S.M. degree from M.I.T. in Engineering (while a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellow), and a Ph.D. from M.I.T. in Molecular Nanotechnology..."
-B

Sammich, the result of taking cheese and bread and something else (optionally, depending on your budget). A nano-sammich is the money, the knowledge, and the community coming together to make nanotech..
And as far as teaching the students, I've got a feeling the 'students' will be teaching themselves... as more and more money flows in so will the research and discovery flow out -- the mayo?

The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all, is the person who argues with him.

I just can't see these degrees getting much respect until such time as there's actually something to teach to the students.

Actually, there is a lot to teach with regards to Nanotech. Sure, not actual means of creating and manipulating atmos/molecules to create objects, but there's a lot more than that. There are a few potential roads to nanotechnology, and all of them require a lot of effort and specialization. Wouldn't it make more sense for someone to get a degree in Nanotech while learning about protein folding, quantum mechanics, and the like, so to increase the chance of being able to combine these methods, than to make someone take more time to get multiple degrees to learn the same stuff?

There's also all the theoretical parts, the ideas that can't be tested yet, but still provide interesting work. When they get to the point of creating molecular machines, wouldn't it be nice to have software ready to help design them, and parts, and even entire machines, ready to start working on?

There is not, by any means, a shortage of things to study and research in such a degree program. The only shortage is of actual molecular nanotechnology itself, and this degree program will likely aim at getting to that point, at least at first.---

What a sleazy grab for headlines. Unless one works in an advanced IBM lab or the like, such a degree isn't worth the paper it's
printed on. No one is currently in a position to "teach" nano-tech. It's like teaching warp-drive at this point.

ummm, what's the difference between this and all other scientific graduate programs? Scientific research involves reaching into the unknown. nanotech is one such unknown. how is this different?

Are you at all familiar with how graduate science programs function? They don't just teach you stuff that's already known. Maybe for a master's degree you can do a few classes and maybe a short thesis project. But for a PhD, you've got to pick some specific research area, and work it out for a few years, under guidance of your thesis adviser. You're pretty much expected to become the world's expert in that fairly specific sub-area.

And of course this research is into a new realm. Trying something new out, or possibly finding a better way to do something that's already known. But one doesn't merely repeat what's already done, just for the sake of repeating it. There is an amount of verification, though, just to keep people honest (remember cold fusion)?

Plus, there's usually lots of colloboration between big labs and grad programs, such as IBM as you mention. Big companies like this are usually more than willing to shell out small cash in comparison, to have some slaves (read grad students) really focus on research specifics. Much cheaper than hiring full-time employees to do the same.

Finally, there are many grad programs already doing nanotech stuff. For example, down the hall from me right now some people in the experimental condensed matter physics wing are doing research on carbon nanotubes. Just this is in the physics dept, this announcement deals with the first dept focused exclusively on nanotech.

It goes back to the wonderful days of USENET, when there wasn't such thing as this newfangled web. We used gopher, and we liked it. And we read usenet with rn or trn, and we didn't have to deal with aol.com, and if we made our sigs more than 4 lines, we would see it being made fun of in alt.fan.warlord.

Then the floodgates opened... and today we get to read about pouring hot grits down a petrified Natalie Portman's shorts and get links to goatse.cx. (you know, if evolution is real, why are people seeming to become less and less intelligent?)---

Wouldn't it make more sense for someone to get a degree in Nanotech while learning about protein folding, quantum mechanics, and the like, so to increase the chance of being able to combine these methods, than to make someone take more time to get multiple degrees to learn the same stuff?

There's also all the theoretical parts

Just a random thought here...if quantum mechanics doesn't still qualify as theoretical, what does!?

Well, I suppose you're right that there is a lot of science from various areas that a budding nanotechnologist needs to know, but it still seems strange to me to be giving out degrees for something that can't actually be built yet...

...that's probably why they've issued the degree under a "Philosophy" banner rather than a Technology banner.

Ordinarily, it would be quite stupid to put a technical degree under a Philosophy banner....Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D) usually only refers to natural sciences and philosphy, art, etc. (Geology, Anthropology, Mathematics, Physics etc). Anything applied, like Applied Mathematics, Computers, Electronics, Robotics etc, would usually go under a Technology or Science degree (D.Sc or D.T/D.Tech)

I don't think anyone is questioning the practicality of fully developed nano-technology as an industry. There are some concerns over the fact that a university is offering a degree in a field in which very little practical headway has been made. Are we not still at the stage where we are merely developing building blocks to use in any advancements that are to follow?

However those who question the wisdom of having such a program should keep in mind that this is not an undergraduate course, but a high level degree program for a select few, that are to be the leaders in the field.

Not to point out the obvious, but from the comments I have read - something many people fail to understand, that the pioneers in any field never have degrees in the field. How could they, who would teach them?

The reason that progress is slow at the start of a new field is that the pioneers have to teach themselves. Once a field is established by those people then a university can start 'professing' what the pioneers discovered and grant degrees in the subject.

This greatly expands the quantity of people available to work in the field, and allows the graduates to look down their noses at the pioneers and say: "We don't hire people without degrees." This has the benefit of allowing less talented people to work without having to compete with the rare people who can teach themselves to do something at a Ph.D. level without formal instruction.

Even though it isn't truly the 21st century, I say welcome to it. As an undergraduate at the U of Washington, I can definitely say this is both exciting and well deserved of our school. Nanotech is such a broad and diverse field that I don't think simultaneous degrees in one of 9 other departments will be enough truly to show all the potential a program like this could have.

I can tell you that this isn't merely a grab for attention as some have claimed in their slashdot responses, but is more a step in the right direction. What better school than the University of Washington, who already receives more research dollars than every other public school in the country, and receives the second most overall. A degree in nanotech will create an atmosphere where more and more researchers will soon be able to dedicate their potential and their academic prowress towards moving in the right direction for a true start.

Either way, it will still be many years before anyone could truly guage the effectiveness of this program, but if the program succeedes, you can guarantee that they Ivy League Schools will be all over it.

Beowulf clusters will be extra important once nano tech is used to develop a computer. I would say linux would run quite nicely on a nanotech computer.
I think Linus and a nanotech PhD should get together. They would revolutionize the computer industry which is in need of some serious innovation.

You clearly do not understand nanotechnology and are the biggest troll I've ever seen. First off, no nanotechnology persons have been developed (except for those transported back in time from the future.) Second, everyone knows that a nanotech person by definition would not be at linguisticly capable as myself.
Please do not waste any more of our time until you have acquired an education.
PS. If anyone needs help in hunting down mutant nanotech people from the future, give me a call as I am a l33t nanotech soldier just like Harrison Ford in Bladerunner.

Look at the web pages for this "degree" and you find out that it is actually an "option" on another degree program. That is, one actually gets a Ph.D. in physics or chemistry or another related field (they're listed) "with a nanotechnology option". This means that you fulfill the requirements of the Ph.D. program of your choice plus take additional coursework and fulfill extra requirements for the nanotechnology option.

Also, take a look at the courses listed on the web page. The only ones that mention nanotechnology are seminar-type courses. As a graduate student, I can tell you that these seminar courses usually involve sitting around and reading/discussing papers and ideas in your field of study. The remaining balance of courses are taken from physics, chemistry, etc. and are courses that majors in these fields are probably already taking.

That said, this is the way new graduate programs often start up. That is, they start by being options on traditional degree programs. Then, as the field expands and the amount of knowledge in the field grows, the options turn into true degree-granting programs of their own. See, for example, the many Computational Science programs in the United States. A few years ago these were all options on more traditional degrees from computer science or physics or chemistry or other related field. Now they are turning into real degree-granting departments at some schools.

No kidding. Just last week I built a self-replicating robot that rips apart any carbon structures it finds and makes copies of itself. I thought it was pretty impressive, but now some clueless frat boy with a Ph.D. is going to end up getting the position I rightfully deserve.

I've done a lot of thinking about that, actually. Nanotechnology looks like it might end the war on drugs. Why? Because people won't actually need drugs - nanobots could, in theory, affect our brains however they were programmed.

Therefore, and this is highly theoretical, our brains could be tuned to be a) faster and smarter, b) constantly stoned, or c) infatuated with Ross Perot.

I've heard of alot of academics trying to posture themselves as nanotech players in the last couple years, with alot of rosy talk about what they're going to do but little by way of concrete results. Seems like we've seen this before with past fads such as chaos/complex systems and string theory. I'm a little skeptical of scientists who spend all their time publicity seeking and little of it in the lab. When Einstein was developing his theory of relativity, he didn't prance around crowing about all the things he was going to do and how great they'd be, he just sat inside his room and worked things out. I'm not saying I have anything against nanotech, I'm saying do something significant, then come talk to us.

Is it really that bad? Computer science was either done by math departments or considered a perk of being an engineering student for years.

And if we hop into the way-back machine, think of all the centuries that mathematics was considered philosophy...
Besides, you can't really justify having a nanotech dept to some admin without having some preexisting body of knowledge to study (and "let's make shit really small" isn't going to get you many grants).

I go to the U of Washington, and while this program may be new, the focus on nanotech has long been a possible 'degree branch' in the BioEngineering and BioChem programs here.

I've got friends who're in these degrees and are speciallizing in Nanotechnology. It's almost bad that it is now its own program, because as everyone has already said, WHO CARES? There's very little practical job market for a graduate. Its almost like a story about a particularly charismatic ceramic engineering professor I heard once--he convinced a lot of students that cermaics was the future, and after they had gotten their degrees naturally they were screwed. At least with the background stuffed down your throat in the BioChem and BioEng departments you can go places.

Hopefully, the vapor will condense into a solid, viable department sometime in the not-too-distant future along with Nanotech's development into a solid, viable field with commercial (read: necessary) applications. The latter is, of course, a requirement of the former.

That's nothing. The BBC recently repo rte d [bbc.co.uk] that the University of Surrey is appointing a Professor of Airline Catering. Noted restaurant critic Egon Ronay commented, "You might as well appoint a professor of shoe cleaning"

Okay, so it may well be the first degree program, but isn't Karl Eric Drexler (of MIT and rhe Foresight Institute) already a PhD in this area? I bought Nanosystems (availible from Amazon [amazon.com] a while ago (and it went over my head), but I'm sure that was in the easy-to-understand "About the Author" section
Sarcas

Ahem... nanotechnology is a real industry, guy. It didn't say they're awarding PhDs in "Building tiny super-robots that can eat the earth or take over your brain". Put down The Diamond Age and start looking at some of the relevant journals. You just might be surprised by what's going on.

Sorry, that comment should have read:
<ln><p>Okay, so it may well be the first degree program, but isn't Karl Eric Drexler (of MIT and <a href="http://www.foresight.org">The Foresight Institute</a>) already a PhD in this area? <p>I bought Nanosystems (availible from Amazon) a while ago (and it went way over my head), but I'm sure that was in the easy-to-understand "About the Author" section <p>Sarcas
<ln>
Sorry if the lack of formatting in the original caused undue consternation.

Yes, acording to foresight.org, Drexler has a "Ph.D. from M.I.T. in Molecular Nanotechnology". The headline from this story is technically true because Drexler had to create his own course of study and have it approved by some board at MIT, they didn't have "nanotech" in the course catalog and aparently still don't. IIRC, the guy who started Games magazine created his own PhD in the study of games.

I also go to UW and well, I've heard nothing of this Nanotalkie stuff.
Can I use it with my Nokia cell phone?
Oh yeah, and my fraternity...
I'm a Sociology major.
(J/k steve-0)
We gotta represent UW. Moo post

We wouldn't need plastic surgery either. Or survival of the fittest. There's no reason why an army of nanites or nanobots or what-have-you could go into every one of your cells and forcibly mutate every strand of DNA to the desired specification. All regenerative tissues then could change to reflect the new DNA eventually. I'd like to say that this couldn't happen, but is there any reason that it couldn't?

I read Nanodot [nanodot.org] just as frequently as I read Slashdot. Nanodot is a forum built off of slashcode where people talk about oncoming technologies. Sad thing is that there's only about 3 or 4 replies per article. There is some great discussion going on here that could just get better on Nanodot. Check it out and comment it up! Don't let it sit there...

I've read a few comments saying that it is too early to have a nanotech degree. Last week I was at another function of the College of Engineering here at the University of Washington. The Dean gave a brief explanation of why we are the first University to have such a degree. Over that last couple of years the College of Engineering has had a lot of older profs retire. The University has been been very aggressive in replacing those old professors with the best and brightest. Many of those new faculty decided to come because of our superior facilities in Microfabrication (right next to my lab) and Photonics. As a result we have a faculty whose main interests lies in micro- and nano- sized machines.

You might not believe it, but Economics is a science, or at least a part of Economics is - just do a google search on "experimental economics." Of course, I am biased - experimental econ is what I am going to spend the next five (maybe 50) years of my life on:)

It's a bit of a long shot, but I'm graduating with my PhD "Nanosimulation of the Cytoskeleton" - basically a big sim program of how nanometer scale thingumies can self-assemble - next week...
Still I guess I'm graduating in 'computer science' rather than 'Nanotechnology'...
- Chris Betts
P.S. Shameless plug: 'most' of it's on the web pegacat.com/phd [pegacat.com]

I want those same nanites to make starbucks frappucinos in my bloodstream....I love those things and am horribly addicted, but I have to drive 45 minutes just to get one! Nobody in this little wide-spot-in-the-road town even knows what they are!:\

This is a technology that is being developed experimentally everyday. Nanoparticles are not
theoretical but actual physical products that can
be created in the lab. For a nice spoof of slashdot with the latest nanotech info goto:
www.nanodot.org